@gidon yuval said:

Hi Bren and welcome to the forum.
One thig that may help you in getting the hang of using SU is to think in terms of extrusion. I'm sure you are familiar with the Playdough machines where the child simply chooses the nozzle shape and forces the Playdough through it.
[attachment=0:3sjfduc3]<!-- ia0 -->180px-Playdoh.jpg<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:3sjfduc3]

Well, modeling with SU is quite similar. Always think in terms of the base shape or the profile of what you want to model. Once you have the shape and you know in which you want it to go then you've done 50% of the work.

Yes, indeed. Thanks, Gidon. Hadn't read your reply yet, as I've been quite busy, but now that I read this it is immediately reminding me of the Follow Me tool. I managed to create a donut with it which I afterwards gave some smooth bumps and dents of different sizes. Furthermore, made some terrain, a little cabin of stone, a bucket, etc. I think it's going quite well and fast too

@gaieus said:

I guess you should attach the model for us to have a better look.

Yes, here it is in SKP form.

bjo_06(nachtkast).skp

My purpose was now more that of honest critique on the program I guess. I figured the program would be more consistent.

Having two differently named options that are essentially the same is odd. It's like having the choice between two coffees that are given interesting sounding names, but the simple truth is that one has slightly more sugar and it's hardly a difference, yet there they are those options.

It's not just odd; it's even wrong: 2=2, 3=3, 2#3, all true, yet it seems that in the program "2=3" (to put it simple like that, regarding the naming and what you get).

If it is true the two modes have no significant difference other than starting viewpoint, that human characer (Bryce?), and other little touches (like distant horizon), then one mode -- starting in standard 3D view, because this program is primarily concerned with 3D, and for those who need immediate sense of direction or familiarity -- would be enough, even more optimal, with the option to switch on/off the third axis (and all its related geometry), because when expecting 2D one expects 2D, and when expecting 3D one expects 3D. Simpler, cleaner, and more elegant than this fine program already is !

Thanks, guys. You've made it very clear and easily understandable.

There' still some questions. For instance: if there is no significant difference between 2D and 3D templates, why include a 3D template? Rotating the view in "2D" (when starting from the top view) quickly gives you the view you initially get in the 3D template. Also, the fact that a Z line is at your cursor is immediately strange when one expects 2D.
If I were Google, I'd remove the redundant "3D" templates, and install a TRUE 2D template with only X and Y, and call the current "2D" template the standard view or something like that. Or, even better, only keep the standard view (the current 2D template, and rename it), but give the option to deactivate the Z axis, so it's true 2D. Too many options, especially if redundant, only confuse.

Regarding Perspective and Parallel views, I am under the impression that Parallel view uses less resources, because the sense of depth/perspective is not calculated, much like I would also calculate less or do less effort if I did not draw any perspective on paper.

@remus said:

The 2d mode isnt really 2d (as you spotted) its just a change in the camera viewpoint. i.e. its like looking straight down on the model. Ive got a feeling it also changes the camera mode to parallel projection, although im not certain on that.

Those are only true when you load up a new file, though, as they can be changed very easily within SU when you get modeling.

Just to be certain I understand you: by parallel projection (which I take literally without knowing or remembering exact terminology) you mean, indeed, the ignoring of depth (and such), the literal precise parallel placement of lines which is how we see this back on-screen in 2D mode? Hmm, it has to be. What other reasonable possibility is there?

Is there a (significant) difference in resource use regarding the two modes?

Gaieus, I took your advice and drew a diagonal line to make two triangles: only one triangle was recognized as a surface. The answer was just on my mind but it quickly slipped away already.

I think this is quite simple, but after some thought I just got confused and need some accurate answers.

Under Preferences | Template | Drawing Template I usually have Metric Millimeters-3D selected. Just to see what it was about, I checked out Metric 2Dwith the thought it would only allow the X and Y axes, but it seems I can still use the Z axis. So then I started thinking: when using 3D you are in "full 3D", and when using 2D you are in "2-dimensional 3D" (as if on flat paper, like how I'd draw a simple 3D sketch with measurements on a piece of paper ignoring depth precision (or horizon?), to put it like that)?

Anyway, whatever the answer, I've gotten obsessed now with this thing, so I must know... What is the exact difference between 2D and 3D modes? And what are the advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks.

Ugh, my fatigue made me overlook what I was actually looking at: it was the wrong tab! This reteaches me the valuable lesson of being well-rested...

This is probably a trivial thing:

For testing purposes, I've created a 24x24 terrain, exploded it (which took a while to find out it was necessary), smooved it a bit here and there, and tried to apply a texture via the Paint Bucket tool, but the options in the PB tool are all greyed out....?

Thanks, guys!

I figure I post this here, if you don't mind, so I can prevent spamming threads.

In this little project I can't seem to get a surface on the lowest drawer (on the inside). I thought some lines weren't connected, but I just can't seem to solve it. Any ideas?

There doesn't seem to be any thread about this. Suppose one has an object, let's say a chair, and one wants to simply enlarge this chair, is it not correct that multiplication of the values of its variables by one value would indeed enlarge the object? And would it not decrease in size when those variables are divided by one value? If true, and so far my old vague math knowledge tells me it is, is this option to easily increase/decrease an object available in SketchUp?

Hi Jean. Thank you very much, it's beautiful. To tell you the truth I did what you described until scene 2 or 3, but I decided to just make an arc, copy it, move it down the Z axis, and connect some lines (if I remember correctly). I guess I made a stupid mistake.

Thank you, Gaieus, for your reply. That sounds familiar, about lastly learning math at the age of 18, as I had the same thing. Now that I think of it, I kind of wish I had continued studying mathematics instead of other things (or, rather, if possible study both directions). The things one could do with math... it's everywhere, it's such a beautiful universal language. Well, I figure I can get reacquainted with it now.

I have a simple question which might sound stupid: why is there no surface on the handles in my attempt to mimic the little closet?

Hi, call me Bren. 3D modeling is not my thing (as that is music and philosophy), but I am very eager and motivated to make this one of my things through time. Unexpectedly, I entered the trial-and-error of 3D modeling, as I have lots of imagination but lack of mathematical geometrical knowledge.

I downloaded SketchUp, started learning some tools, and began constructing a still scene of a battle more or less simultaneously and enthusiastically. Within some hours, it was a scene of a tank and infantry platoon following a road approaching a tight defense of pillboxes and garrisons surrounded by tank traps and fences, while behind it there is a small village with a big church and little roads. It was primitive, but I thought it was alright for my first try and it really conveyed the meaning or intention.

Later I attempted to build a wooden watchtower which looks pretty primitive but which fairly pleased me. As you can see my enthusiasm, motivation, and imagination have no limit, but I'm somewhat held back by the lack of mathematical/geometrical knowledge.

Question: do you reckon this kind of knowledge is VERY necessary to make good models with SketchUp, or is it NOT SO MUCH necessary?

Question: how seriously did the (FORMAL) learning of geometry affect your imagination and creativity?

Question: do you work professionally with SketchUp (i.e. for money or personal professional use, etc.)?

Question: how does one attach files to forum posts?

Thank you, and thanks to Google for this fine program.